Herbert Valerio Riedel
hvriedel at gmail.com
Mon Jan 18 09:14:12 UTC 2016
On 2016-01-18 at 03:17:44 +0100, Niklas Hambüchen wrote:
> The request for this is quite old (see e.g.
> I believe that by not trying to use an operator for it, and keeping it
> in Data.Bool, we can avoid doing anything wrong.
Just wondering, what could/would go wrong if we did use an operator
`==>` (still be hidden in Data.Bool), i.e.
(==>) :: Bool -> Bool -> Bool
True ==> x = x
False ==> _ = True
this would leave open the option to have an obvious flipped version
(<==) :: Bool -> Bool -> Bool
(<==) = flip (==>)
: Consequently, if `==>` is available only via explicit Data.Bool
import, a conflict with QuickCheck's (==>) shouldn't be a big
More information about the Libraries